[ad_1]
- Since World War II, carbon dioxide emissions have not decreased as much as they did during the coronavirus epidemic.
- Air traffic worldwide has decreased by 60%, road traffic has been cut in half and Europe consumes 14% less electricity than last year.
- In the long term, however, the multi-month closure of the industrialized world is also a drop in the ocean.
- Global emissions could drop 8% this year, while climate researchers say a 7.6% reduction should be achieved each year for the next ten years to curb global warming.
- And the current recession won’t have an immediate effect: Under current processes, 2020 could be the hottest year of all time.
Due to the coronavirus epidemic, civil aviation has virtually stopped in much of the world, many factories have closed, road traffic, and therefore oil consumption has collapsed, a significant proportion of container ships and ships Oceanic luxury lounge on the dock, with a small air from China to America. In some parts of India, the Himalayas were seen for the first time in decades, and in Budapest the concentration of pollutants was reduced by a third.
As a result, the International Energy Agency predicts that global CO2 emissions will drop a record rate this year, which means that a positive side effect of the epidemic could be protecting the environment and the climate, it could be thought from the above. .
However, in a less optimistic reading, the economic downturn caused by the epidemic indicates that halting climate change requires much more serious action than even controlling the epidemic.
The record decline is only eight percent compared to the previous year. What helps put it in context is that, according to a UN report last November, emissions will need to be reduced by an average of 7.6 percent per year over the next ten years to reach an average of 2,100 degrees Celsius at 2,100 degrees Celsius per above the average prior to the Industrial Revolution. In other words, from now on, the amount of emissions should be reduced each year and this year compared to last year.
Many but not enough
According to a report issued by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in late April, global energy-related CO2 emissions fell 5 percent from early January to late March 2020 compared to the same period in 2019 Based on current trends, a decrease of 8 percent, or approximately 2.6 gigatons, can be expected for the entire year.
This is a very significant figure: a recent decline occurred more recently at the end of World War II (energy demand fell 8.1 percent in 1946), but in absolute terms it was also insignificant compared to today, since at that time a fraction of world energy consumption was a fraction.
- How important is the reduction in emissions caused by the coronavirus to slow climate change?
- Can warming stop if we no longer sit on a plane?
- How can projections for 2020 be the hottest year if greenhouse gas emissions drop?
Some people no longer have questions, And there are those who read the Index.
Support me too!
However, in a broader context, this year’s data is still quite sad: if these estimates are obtained, the 2020 emissions figure will be approximately equivalent to that of ten years ago, so
Even without flying and traveling to work, we can release as many greenhouse gases into the air as in 2010, including flying and traveling to work.
Furthermore, the IEA only calculates energy-related CO2 emissions and does not take into account emissions of other greenhouse gases or other processes that affect the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as the effects of deforestation. IEA terminology projected emissions of approximately 34 gigatons in 2019, while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading professional forum for climate change, released nearly 55 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent to the atmosphere in 2018 ( IPCC also makes energy emissions a little higher at 37.5 gigatons.)
Another reason for pessimism is that, according to the IPCC, to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the last value of 55 gigatons should be reduced to 25 gigatons by 2030 (why the degree and a half is an important goal, we write more about this here). In other words, this year’s decline of 2.6 gigatons should be repeated every year for ten years, from a lower and lower base, and preferably in a way that, unlike the epidemic, not everything leads to mass unemployment and impoverishment .
The Earth is heating up even without planes.
This promises to be cumbersome simply because the year 2020 has brought great turmoil in many sectors that are considered key to climate change. In the first quarter of 2020, global air traffic fell by 60 percent, and road traffic fell by half from the first three months of 2019. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) estimates that traffic Global aviation will be 65 percent lower in the second quarter, 40 percent in the third, but 10 percent lower in the fourth than last year, so the decline will continue.
At the same time, aviation is only responsible for 2.5 percent of global emissions, but the share of the total transport sector also varies by 20 percent, with road traffic accounting for about 15 percent. So if convergence became completely zero in 2030, that would not be enough to achieve the goal set by the IPCC.
In contrast, the decrease was much less in the sectors responsible for most of the production. Global heat and power generation, which accounts for half of greenhouse gas emissions, decreased by just 2.5 percent in the first quarter, driven not only by the epidemic but also by a milder-than-usual winter . In areas subject to curfews (adjusted for weather effects), the decline was greater than this, around 10-15 percent, in Italy subject to 25 percent curfews.
Although consumption fell by 14 percent and CO2 emissions by 39 percent in Europe in April, China’s electricity demand has already dropped to last year’s level and has not decreased in most parts of the world . And greening in Europe did not start with the epidemic: emissions from the energy sector fell 5 percent last year in Europe and 2.9 percent in the Americas, but globally the decline was only 1.2 percent as energy demand in the developing world increased.
Therefore, this year has not brought much change in the broader processes, even if the numbers are more positive.
illusory
The decrease was also moderate in the industry, which accounted for a fifth of emissions. Although consumption in the service sector fell dramatically, and in February, the Chinese and, since March, European industry also suffered a major drawback, it only lasted a few weeks. According to the IEA, there is less evidence of an epidemic in industrial consumption, and household demand for electricity has increased significantly. Overall, the decrease of 2.6 gigatons was largely due to a decrease in US oil consumption. USA And Chinese coal consumption.
The IEA report also contains some moderate optimism data. The proportion of renewable energy within electricity generation has increased, while that of the most polluting energy sources (coal, lignite, oil) has decreased. However, the share of coal in world energy production remains at 34 percent this year (up from 36 percent last year). coal power China’s recovery.
According to the report, the faster the recovery, the higher the proportion of polluting power plants that survive the epidemic: if the demand for electricity quickly returns to previous levels after quarantine measures are lifted, sources will be needed. fast ignition, generally thermal power plants. Lighting them can also be helped by the fact that, although the cost-effectiveness of the most polluting energy sources (oil, coal) has steadily deteriorated in recent years compared to renewable sources, which have become cheaper , the rapid decline in demand has taken away the goods.
“As a result of the coronavirus epidemic, greenhouse gas emissions may be reduced, but this will not replace measures to achieve a sustainable climate,” the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) recently said. And an American investigator said he said
“People handle their individual emissions too much, whether they fly or not, but they don’t deal with the systemic things that are really responsible for the increase in emissions.”
In recent weeks, several experts have emphasized the need for an ecological resumption after quarantine, which means that we must fundamentally rethink the sustainability of our energy systems, taking advantage of the temporary shock. But while the most optimistic say that the world will never be the same after the coronavirus as before, current Chinese or American developments tend to point in the direction that the world’s biggest polluters want to return to pollution as quickly as possible. light of the economic and social damage caused by the epidemic.
It’s going to be a warm year
And some of the positive effects of quarantine are downright misleading. While it is good for human health and nature that the air in cities has been cleaned, it says little about CO2 emissions, since smog is not caused by carbon dioxide, but by small particles also called particulates.
On the other hand, this year’s recession does not mean that it will stop heating up, since it is not affected by the amount of greenhouse gases emitted in a given year, but by the total concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that is, carbon dioxide emitted and accumulated in recent years. and others.
And so is the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. will rise this year– And according to the first signs, despite the reduction in emissions, 2020 may be the hottest year yet, as we have reliable data on Earth’s temperature. This is ironically helped in part by a reduction in air pollution: A March study between the United States and Germany found that certain harmful substances, typically emitted by container ships, light up clouds, increase their reflectivity, and reduce ocean warming. . Its disappearance may (temporarily) increase the temperature of the oceans (of course, in the long run it will be better for Earth if the ships do not swell).
So despite the fact that the air in big cities has been cleaned up, the direct impact of the coronavirus epidemic on the climate is negligible compared to the amount of emission reductions needed to curb climate change. In this regard, the epidemic has changed nothing: experts so far have argued that radical energy changes are needed; And based on current data, it also appears that this means much bigger and more comprehensive reforms than not taking a plane.
(Cover image: Thyssenkrupp steel plant and Steag thermal power plant in Germany. Photo: Marcel Kusch / Getty Images)
[ad_2]
